Ocorreu um erro neste gadget

quinta-feira, julho 01, 2010

O puzzle de Jesus: uma crítica cética


Bom, dado que parece que nem Roberto Takata nem Kentaro Mori irão escrever uma resenha crítica do artigo Jesus Puzzle, acho que deverei ser eu a fazer o trabalho de cético. Começo com alguns comentários feitos no Pharingula:

Posted by: Osame Kinouchi Author Profile Page | June 30, 2010 9:24 AM

Dear P. Z.,

Disclaimer (I am an atheist scientist).

I found in the site of Atheists of Silicon Valley
inumerous links to the conspiratory theory of the Mythical Christ. Se here:

http://comciencias.blogspot.com/2010/06/ateismo-sim-conspiracionismo-nao.html

This is a well known pseudocientific thesis and it seems to me that serious atheists should not subscribe it, but it seems that this theory is gaining increasing popularity in atheists circles.

After a search, I have not found any critical account of it in your blog, in denialism blog and others atheist blogs in Science Blogs.

So, I ask you to make some considerations about this issue, because a friend asserts me that no serious atheist subscribe it. Is this affirmation valid?

With best regards,

Osame

PS: Ou seja, minha pergunta inicial não é sobre a historicidade de Jesus, mas sim sobre a plausibilidade da Teoria do Cristo Mítico de E. Doherty e outros e sobre as credenciais acadêmicas desses autores, dado que a teoria consta da lista de teorias conspiratórias da Wikipedia. Isso foi motivado pelas fortes afirmações da Wikipedia. Se estas estão erradas, deveriam ser editadas:

While advocates rely on the absence of contemporaneous reference to Jesus,[140] and the relative silence of Paul regarding much of Jesus' life, specialists like R. T. France regard such arguments with deep suspicion, arguing that various sources may not mention Jesus for any number of reasons.[141] Further, while many Christ myth theorists draw parallels between early Christianity and Hellenistic mystery religions, relatively little is actually known about the beliefs and practices of the latter.[115] Scholars like Herbert George Wood have suggested that, given the above issues, the Christ myth theory can only be advocated in defiance of the available evidence.[142] A number of scholars therefore classify it as a form of denialism and compare it to a variety of fringe theories.[143] For example, the BBC's Today programme once asked N. T. Wright if he would appear on-air to debate Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy concerning the thesis of their book The Jesus Mysteries. Wright, whom Newsweek once deemed "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar",[144] declined, saying that "this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."[114]

Posted by: Dania Author Profile Page | June 30, 2010 10:07 AM

Osame Kinouchi,

I suggest you read this first. Then you can come back to us.

Posted by: Osame Kinouchi Author Profile Page | June 30, 2010 10:30 AM

Dania and PZ, Doherty is a well known conspiracionist. I am saying about serious historians and references, like the present in Encyclopedia Britanica...

Should the article about the historical Jesus in Encyclopedia Britannica be changed?
Should we atheists try do edit the pages about the historical Jesus and the Christ Myth theory in Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Posted by: Osame Kinouchi Author Profile Page | June 30, 2010 10:58 AM

Dear Dania, I follow your link to the Journal of High Criticism,http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/

It seems to me that an scholar journal should not put in its forefront that:

This Publication May be Hazardous to Your Cherished Assumptions!

Is this journal serious? Is it listed in the ISI Thompson databank?

Also there is an humorous citation:
F. C. Baur says, "I've been waiting a long time to see something like this appear again."

It does not seems to me a scholarly journal. Or is it?

Baurs (1792-1860) is the lea

der of the Tubingen school tha, as the wikipedia article says:

The Tübingen School was at the height of its influence in the 1840s, but lost ground to historical fact.[4] Since Adolf von Harnack proposed very early dates for the synoptics and Acts (c 1910), the Tübingen School has been generally abandoned.[5]

Should we edit the Baurs wikipedia page?

Posted by: Dania Author Profile Page | June 30, 2010 11:04 AM

Well, I for one, am not asserting that Jesus did not exist. I'm saying that there is absolutely no credible historical evidence for his existence, as far as I know. In addition to that, the Jesus story is internally inconsistent. If Osame knows of any evidence for Jesus existence, I would really like to hear about it.

And this is all I have to say on this topic.

Posted by: Dania Author Profile Page | June 30, 2010 11:52 AM

Osame says: Sorry, I am really concerned that we atheists should endorse conspiracy theories like Christ Myth Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

You're concerned that some atheists agree with something that someone (who?) decided to call a conspiracy theory on freaking Wikipedia? Please.

Posted by: Dania Author Profile Page | June 30, 2010 12:45 PM

Do you think that there is no scholar consensus about the historical existence of Jesus?

No, I recognize that the consensus exists. I also happen to think that the source of it could just largely be consensus gentium. Actually, I think Richard Carrier (thanks for the link, Sili!) makes this point too.

But, really, I don't know. I think it's possible that the Jesus story evolved from earlier mythologies and isn't tied to a historical figure. Or maybe there was a historical figure from which the myth originated. There's so little data that it's hard to say.

That said, I would, of course, welcome opinions from people who have studied this subject in more detail than I have.

Posted by: broboxley OT Author Profile Page | June 30, 2010 12:48 PM

@Ol'Greg #108 it's wikipedia, a consensus based encyclopedia run by rabid agendaists not a scholarly publication. Altho it is useful for a quick look for some things.


Ou seja, toda a questão é sobre quem é mais confiável (neste tópico da Teoria do Cristo Mítico). Earl Doharty, um escritor com apenas o bacharelado em História (ou seja, não é um academico) e que nunca conseguiu publicar seus artigos em qualquer revista séria com peer review, ou as abundantes fontes citadas pela Wikipedia.  Agora, se a Wikipedia também faz parte da grande conspiração (a consensus based encyclopedia run by rabid agendaists), o que eu posso mais dizer?


Eu apenas não entendo qual é a diferença entre as posições de Takata e as de Doharty. Elas me parecem idênticas. E Takata não consegue reconhecer que suas posições diferem do consenso acadêmico (os acadêmicos não são agnósticos em relação à historicidade de Jesus, eles não acham que as evidências são fracas ou inexistentes, conforme afirma Doharty).  Sendo assim, quando sua opinião difere do maistrean acadêmico, me parece que o ônus da prova está com ele - e com Takata, não com os acadêmicos (assim como o ônus da prova estava com Galileu, e não com os acadêmicos de seu tempo). Será Doharty o novo Galileu, que irá revolucionar os estudos acadêmicos sobre o Jesus Histórico?

Repetindo:  A number of scholars therefore classify it as a form of denialism and compare it to a variety of fringe theories.[143] For example, the BBC's Today programme once asked N. T. Wright if he would appear on-air to debate Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy concerning the thesis of their book The Jesus Mysteries. Wright, whom Newsweek once deemed "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar",[144] declined, saying that "this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."[114]


Acho que a melhor maneira de Takata refutar minha tese de que ele está adotando as teses de Duharty seria ele fazer um (pequeno?) post com uma análise crítica e cética sobre Duharty, suas credenciais acadêmicas e sua Teoria do Cristo Mítico. É muito simples, basta acessar a página de Duharty via um link aqui. Interessante que nesta página da wikipedia não existe nenhuma referência para artigos em revistas acadêmicas sérias, mas apenas para livros auto-publicados, sites de internet e revistas de associações ateístas.


Nenhum comentário: